Gay gene

[Wazkyraque]

If a gay gene could be destroyed I think it would really be more worthwhile to eliminate the gene and the suffering than try to re-educate an entire population for an easily and painlessly eradicated gene.

Where's my say in this, I've never suffered, where is all this suffering I keep hearing about?

And eliminating the gene because of gay bullying/et cetera is just as illogical as getting rid of women to prevent rape, or getting rid of blacks because of racism.

[Norstal]

Why?

Well, according to my own personal beliefs and philosophy, I deem homosexuality as a mutation or a genetic disorder.

You don't get to "believe" in genetics because it is a branch of science and not philosophy.

[Iuuvic]

General response, he would...Whatever, and it would be needed if he wanted to control epigenetic variations as well...

PRoblem, machines= no genetics. At all.

No genetics means I presume, no epigenetics.

Well then make a thread about robots and what a 'perfect' world one where humans were replaced by robots would be...This thread is about genetics and the ethics behind gene alteration. The two are not even close to related, I don't see how you could try and make that kind of leap.

[Arkinesia]

I'd rather get rid of the gene that causes gays to still be discriminated against.

I don't think humans could function well without a genome.

Prejudice is quite frankly another facet of the human condition.

[Wazkyraque]

Why?

Well, according to my own personal beliefs and philosophy, I deem homosexuality as a mutation or a genetic disorder.

Blue eyes are a mutation, so that's not saying much.

(genetic disorder) genetic disease: a disease or disorder that is inherited genetically.

Gay parents don't necessarily breed gay children, my parents for example are strait.

[The Emerald Legion]

PRoblem, machines= no genetics. At all.

No genetics means I presume, no epigenetics.

Well then make a thread about robots and what a 'perfect' world one where humans were replaced by robots would be...This thread is about genetics and the ethics behind gene alteration. The two are not even close to related, I don't see how you could try and make that kind of leap.

I do. Because it doesn't matter what you do with genetics, it's inevitably going to be unethical. Therefore go hogwild, you're already transgressing, might as well try everything.

[Hallistar]

Well then make a thread about robots and what a 'perfect' world one where humans were replaced by robots would be...This thread is about genetics and the ethics behind gene alteration. The two are not even close to related, I don't see how you could try and make that kind of leap.

I do. Because it doesn't matter what you do with genetics, it's inevitably going to be unethical. Therefore go hogwild, you're already transgressing, might as well try everything.

Yeah thats why my position as well went from eliminating the gay gene to full on homogeneity

[TerraNovia (Ancient)]

I can safely say that in the United States of Terranovia, which is a hugely devout Anglican nation... the Gay Gene when discovered will be sent to labs across the country for them to go to each school and screen every child, those with the gene shall be destroyed.

[Salandriagado]

I can safely say that in the United States of Terranovia, which is a hugely devout Anglican nation... the Gay Gene when discovered will be sent to labs across the country for them to go to each school and screen every child, those with the gene shall be destroyed.

Nobody here cares about your imaginary country.

[The Emerald Legion]

I can safely say that in the United States of Terranovia, which is a hugely devout Anglican nation... the Gay Gene when discovered will be sent to labs across the country for them to go to each school and screen every child, those with the gene shall be destroyed.

This is General the IRL forum.

The roleplay forum is a few bars up.

[Iuuvic]

Well then make a thread about robots and what a 'perfect' world one where humans were replaced by robots would be...This thread is about genetics and the ethics behind gene alteration. The two are not even close to related, I don't see how you could try and make that kind of leap.

I do. Because it doesn't matter what you do with genetics, it's inevitably going to be unethical. Therefore go hogwild, you're already transgressing, might as well try everything.

Preventing the consequences of severe and life-long (usually short) crippling genetic abnormalities through tampering is something I don't see as unethical. No more so then treating someone with a severe ailment.

[DizKneeLandRand]

Genetically if possible, but not in the deepest part of the human psyche/spirit/soul. There might be a predestination for a person to be gay that might override the genetic part. Trying to create a non-gay person from a gay person would be like trying to create a perfect person: It wouldn't be possible and the problems it might cause may be worse.

spirit? What predestination are you referring to?

I was referring to The Emerald Legion about how one doesn't truly understand the nature of the human psyche. I'm talking more on a psychological way than a religious. Though as a Tibetan Buddhist, I would call it Karma.

[The Emerald Legion]

I do. Because it doesn't matter what you do with genetics, it's inevitably going to be unethical. Therefore go hogwild, you're already transgressing, might as well try everything.

Preventing the consequences of severe and life-long (usually short) crippling genetic abnormalities through tampering is something I don't see as unethical. No more so then treating someone with a severe ailment.

Oh sure it's helpful, but they are still stuck with the genes they have. Their children will still receive those genes.

[Socialdemokraterne]

If a gay gene could be destroyed I think it would really be more worthwhile to eliminate the gene and the suffering than try to re-educate an entire population for an easily and painlessly eradicated gene.

And a gay person's genetic structure is any of your business because...? It's not, and that's what makes a system in which this sort of an alteration is compulsory unethical. You don't own a gay person's DNA, nor does that DNA fall under the category of public goods. Therefore you have absolutely, positively no right to touch it without that gay person's express permission.

Also, taking the easy road here is not acceptable. People shouldn't be forced to conform their DNA to society's expectations just because those expectations are hard to change.

[Arkinesia]

If a gay gene could be destroyed I think it would really be more worthwhile to eliminate the gene and the suffering than try to re-educate an entire population for an easily and painlessly eradicated gene.

And a gay person's genetic structure is any of your business because...? It's not, and that's what makes a system in which this sort of an alteration is compulsory unethical. You don't own a gay person's DNA, nor does that DNA fall under the category of public goods. Therefore you have absolutely, positively no right to touch it without that gay person's express permission.

Also, taking the easy road here is not acceptable. People shouldn't be forced to conform their DNA to society's expectations just because those expectations are hard to change.

Those poor kleptomaniacs, forced to go to jail because of societal expectations!!! Those bastards in government should be more cognizant of their struggles!!!

Sorry, but societal expectations are a worthwhile reason to destroy a gene if it really isn't going to prevent someone from normal function. Skin tone is fine, that can stay. It's a natural evolutionary adaptation that is biologically beneficial. Homosexuality doesn't really serve a biological benefit and is therefore expendable.

If you don't accept expendable genes, you don't accept naturalistic evolution, simple as that.

[Jormengand]

Stop impersonating FST, you imposter.

Whatever do you mean?

I mean that I wouldn't be agreeing with you so much if you were actually FST. Now untie him and give him back his computer,

[Mike the Progressive]

Gay gene? Are you suggesting we could create people to be gay? You do realize that his makes no sense, right. I understand what your trying to say, but your arguement needs to be a little more thought out instead of relying on something you call a "gay gene".

Wait there's something there, what if and bear with me ze gayz were created by the environmental-waste complex? We all know ze gays are great at recycling, we all know that any straight person doesn't recycle. What if the greedy, corrupt non-profit environmental organizations and the waste corporations spent trillions to produce the gay gene? And released it into 10% of the population, so that they could have ze gay recycling soldiers of death? Imagine the gazillions they are making?

OMG, this is totally like State of Play that I watched part of last night sort of drunk, and I must be Russell Crowe.

This will be locked in three, two, one...

Yeah, how's that coming along?

[The Emerald Legion]

If a gay gene could be destroyed I think it would really be more worthwhile to eliminate the gene and the suffering than try to re-educate an entire population for an easily and painlessly eradicated gene.

And a gay person's genetic structure is any of your business because...? It's not, and that's what makes a system in which this sort of an alteration is compulsory unethical. You don't own a gay person's DNA, nor does that DNA fall under the category of public goods. Therefore you have absolutely, positively no right to touch it without that gay person's express permission.

Also, taking the easy road here is not acceptable. People shouldn't be forced to conform their DNA to society's expectations just because those expectations are hard to change.

Actually as far as I'm concerned the government does own your DNA, as it has to take the well-being of any offspring of yours in mind.

So it has every right to tinker with your genetics.

[Iuuvic]

Preventing the consequences of severe and life-long (usually short) crippling genetic abnormalities through tampering is something I don't see as unethical. No more so then treating someone with a severe ailment.

Oh sure it's helpful, but they are still stuck with the genes they have. Their children will still receive those genes.

Unless we find a way to remove the damaged sequence and replace it with a proper sequence. Or if we design a viral-like gene-therapy method which solves whatever problem the person may have as well as it having an inheritability trait, like that seen in mDNA.

[Hallistar]

spirit? What predestination are you referring to?

I was referring to The Emerald Legion about how one doesn't truly understand the nature of the human psyche. I'm talking more on a psychological way than a religious. Though as a Tibetan Buddhist, I would call it Karma.

You quoted my post for some reason in your thing, which made me think you were referring to me, but oh well..

[Socialdemokraterne]

Those poor kleptomaniacs, forced to go to jail because of societal expectations!!! Those bastards in government should be more cognizant of their struggles!!!

I'm going to be brutally honest with you: that retort was pathetic. Kleptomania is a recognized disorder, homosexuality is not. Kleptomaniacs, by their very nature, induce harm on society. Homosexuals do not induce harm upon society by their very nature. Have a read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

Social unacceptability is the shared trait.

Turns out there was more.

Sorry, but societal expectations are a worthwhile reason to destroy a gene if it really isn't going to prevent someone from normal function. Skin tone is fine, that can stay. It's a natural evolutionary adaptation that is biologically beneficial. Homosexuality doesn't really serve a biological benefit and is therefore expendable.

If you don't accept expendable genes, you don't accept naturalistic evolution, simple as that.

Just because artificial and natural selection both operate through the same basic process (your artificial selection serves as a pressure to drive genetics a certain direction) doesn't mean that using artificial selection on human populations is ethical. You've not yet established why a homosexuals' genes are any of society's business, expendable or no.

[The Emerald Legion]

Oh sure it's helpful, but they are still stuck with the genes they have. Their children will still receive those genes.

Unless we find a way to remove the damaged sequence and replace it with a proper sequence. Or if we design a viral-like gene-therapy method which solves whatever problem the person may have as well as it having an inheritability trait, like that seen in mDNA.

And then what does that lead to? If everyone keeps getting changes to their genes to remove problems?

Genetic homogeneity.

Congratulations. You've affirmed that the only ethical way to use genetics leads to the exact same thing you were arguing against five minutes ago.

[Iuuvic]

Unless we find a way to remove the damaged sequence and replace it with a proper sequence. Or if we design a viral-like gene-therapy method which solves whatever problem the person may have as well as it having an inheritability trait, like that seen in mDNA.

And then what does that lead to? If everyone keeps getting changes to their genes to remove problems?

Genetic homogeneity.

Congratulations. You've affirmed that the only ethical way to use genetics leads to the exact same thing you were arguing against five minutes ago.

No, actually; it would only remove severe abnormalities in gene sequence...Genetic diversity can, and still would exist...Nice try though.

*Things like down syndrome, tay-sachs, sickle-cell and the like.

[Arkinesia]

Those poor kleptomaniacs, forced to go to jail because of societal expectations!!! Those bastards in government should be more cognizant of their struggles!!!

I'm going to be brutally honest with you: that retort was pathetic. Kleptomania is a recognized disorder, homosexuality is not. Kleptomaniacs, by their very nature, induce harm on society. Homosexuals do not induce harm upon society by their very nature. Have a read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

Social unacceptability is the shared trait.

Homosexuality stopped being recognized as a disorder due to a political movement. There is no actual scientific credence being lent to the idea that homosexuality is a normal sexuality.

Doesn't make it a disorder, but doesn't mean you have to keep it for some lame duck principle. Besides, I thought governments are supposed to naturalist relativists? That would mean your principle is legally speaking less important than a piece of chewed gum on the sidewalk.

[Hallistar]

Itd be nice if one day scientists could just clone a body you desire (different race or different genes, etc) and could then transfer your mind into it, I think thatd resolve the issue of ethics.